Club 30's "Kill the Boredom Demon" Jive Pad 146th Edition
-
Originally posted by elindra:
My friend was saying Singapore hawker food cannot eat
They take the lard out of everything. Not nice at all
I say ok what. Fair ma
Malaysia hv better hawker food, we hv better restaurant food, plus they always come to SG de and they all from rich family de
Can afford it.
we dun have e habit to eat lard anymore.Think they didn't b!tch abt e F&N drinks there and here, e sugar content.
e restaurant part
-
Seriously we hv better quality restaurant food
Unless you talking about Chinese cooking la
But I like lard. The KL orh mee and char kwey teow is the best
Singapore one cannot eat de. The best char kwey teow I ate was from this make-shift roadside stall in KL
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Seriously we hv better quality restaurant food
Unless you talking about Chinese cooking la
But I like lard. The KL orh mee and char kwey teow is the best
Singapore one cannot eat de. The best char kwey teow I ate was from this make-shift roadside stall in KL
lolany case Coca Cola will fully hand over all F&N drink rights to F&N Foods in Sept. So far only e packet Season's are MIS.
Rest MIM but it's still e SG sweetness level (Our SG labelling).
I think they might merge e King's Potong & Magnolia Potong Red Bean since King's accquired riao
-
Btw I think it’s sad the M’sia gov is not giving English more priority
A lot of Malays cannot speak English in Malaysia
And my friends were lamenting they cannot communicate with their cousins from smaller towns because they speak Mandarin and cannot understand English whereas, they can’t speak Mandarin -_-“
Btw they are all Chinese. Apparently I realized that a lot of my M’sian friends are “bananas”
-
I've been seeing quite a lot of 100Plus sampling drive...
Booth distributing 100Plus to passerby.
Hard la, we dun like to drink 100Plus on a reg basis as like ppl upnorth. Here is Coca Cola, Green Tea or Iced Lemon Tea.
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Btw I think it’s sad the M’sia gov is not giving English more priority
A lot of Malays cannot speak English in Malaysia
And my friends were lamenting they cannot communicate with their cousins from smaller towns because they speak Mandarin and cannot understand English whereas, they can’t speak Mandarin -_-“
Btw they are all Chinese. Apparently I realized that a lot of my M’sian friends are “bananas”
no.. they want to implement whole day got ppl oppose.e Johor Malays can understand a bit of English though.
It's like tat one.
-
Pls lor who drink isotonic drink all the time >.<
Ya it’s either coke, ice lemon tea or green tea in Singapore
Or the health conscious will go for Pokka sugar free Oolong Tea
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Pls lor who drink isotonic drink all the time >.<
Ya it’s either coke, ice lemon tea or green tea in Singapore
Or the health conscious will go for Pokka sugar free Oolong Tea
My relatives place confirm got 1 carton of 1.5L 100Plus at home one.That's why I think H&E or Qoo not available upnorth.
-
I still remembered when my relatives came to SG nong ago
They kpkb when they drank Sarsi.. They said not sweet.. I gotta tell them eh, here ppl dun like drinks tat's too sweet.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
I still remembered when my relatives came to SG nong ago
They kpkb when they drank Sarsi.. They said not sweet.. I gotta tell them eh, here ppl dun like drinks tat's too sweet.
Ya we dun likeToo sweet we don't drink
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Pls lor who drink isotonic drink all the time >.<
Ya it’s either coke, ice lemon tea or green tea in Singapore
Or the health conscious will go for Pokka sugar free Oolong Tea
i always drink the pokka oolong tea.. but eversince i came back from Japan, i miss the suntory brand one..
Even their red tea or orange tea, or black tea all damn nice to drink.. Singapore too many sweet drinks..
-
Originally posted by stellazio:
i always drink the pokka oolong tea.. but eversince i came back from Japan, i miss the suntory brand one..
Even their red tea or orange tea, or black tea all damn nice to drink.. Singapore too many sweet drinks..
count good le... upnorth is very very sweet. -
Originally posted by stellazio:
i always drink the pokka oolong tea.. but eversince i came back from Japan, i miss the suntory brand one..
Even their red tea or orange tea, or black tea all damn nice to drink.. Singapore too many sweet drinks..
Oh those are niceU can buy in SG but ex le
I always drink Pokka Oolong tea too for soft drinks
-
pinky is right abt e upnorth kopitiam kopi o sweet level..
yucks
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Oh those are niceU can buy in SG but ex le
I always drink Pokka Oolong tea too for soft drinks
the orange tea from meiji is nice.. ehh where to buy the suntory oolong tea? isetan will have ah?
but everytime i order oolong tea, my friends say i ah pek.. drink tea..
-
Originally posted by stellazio:
the orange tea from meiji is nice.. ehh where to buy the suntory oolong tea? isetan will have ah?
but everytime i order oolong tea, my friends say i ah pek.. drink tea..
Tea drinking is part of our chinese culture!
I started drinking chinese tea at a tender age of 3 leh!! And at that age I can drink the super thick and bitter kungfu tea ... which could be why I don't hv a sweet tooth now
I guess it's good coz my body type is not super skinny. If I have a sweet tooth I should be neckless by now
-
i think i'll get a kindle.. thing is, i'm not sure if i should get the small one or the big one?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
i think i'll get a kindle.. thing is, i'm not sure if i should get the small one or the big one?
Get one you are comfortable with carrying around -
Originally posted by elindra:
Get one you are comfortable with carrying aroundthen it'll be the small one.. but the bigger screen is such an attractive thing.. ahahahaha
i'll go bug my sister about it
-
Get one that you can hold with one hand
cos you are going to read so much on it
you need to switch hands!
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
then it'll be the small one.. but the bigger screen is such an attractive thing.. ahahahaha
i'll go bug my sister about it
Hahahaha ok -
Kid Crazy: Why We Exaggerate the Joys of Parenthood
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/#ixzz1FgtClOaxAll parents know that having kids is a blessing — except when it's a nightmare of screaming fits, diapers, runny noses, wars over bedtimes and homework and clothes. To say nothing of bills too numerous to list. Some economists have argued that having kids is an economically silly investment; after all, it's cheaper to hire end-of-life care than to raise a child. Now comes new research showing that having kids is not only financially foolish but that kids literally make parents delusional.
Researchers have known for some time that parents with minors who live at home report feeling calm significantly less often than than people who don't live with young children.
Parents are also angrier and more depressed than nonparents — and each additional child makes them even angrier. Couples who choose not to have kids also have better, more satisfying marriages than couples who have kids. (More on Time.com: Charlie Sheen's Twins Are Taken Away from Him. What Happens Now?)
To be sure, all such evidence will never outweigh the desire to procreate, which is one of the most powerfully encoded urges built into our DNA. But a new paper shows that parents fool themselves into believing that having kids is more rewarding than it actually is. It turns out parents are in the grip of a giant illusion.
The paper, which appears in the journal Psychological Science, presents the results of two studies conducted by Richard Eibach and Steven Mock, psychologists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. The studies tested the hypothesis that “idealizing the emotional rewards of parenting helps parents to rationalize the financial costs of raising children.”
Their hypothesis comes out of cognitive-dissonance theory, which suggests that people are highly motivated to justify, deny or rationalize to reduce the cognitive discomfort of holding conflicting ideas. Cognitive dissonance explains why our feelings can sometimes be paradoxically worse when something good happens or paradoxically better when something bad happens. For example, in one experiment conducted by a team led by psychologist Joel Cooper of Princeton, participants were asked to write heartless essays opposing funding for the disabled. When these participants were later told they were really compassionate — which should have made them feel better — they actually felt even worse because they had written the essays. (More on Time.com: Why Parents Should Play Video Games With Their Daughters)
Here's how cognitive-dissonance theory works when applied to parenting: having kids is an economic and emotional drain. It should make those who have kids feel worse. Instead, parents glorify their lives. They believe that the financial and emotional benefits of having children are significantly higher than they really are.
To test their hypothesis, Eibach and Mock recruited 80 parents at public locations in the northeastern U.S. Forty-seven of the parents were women, and all had at least one child under 18. Eibach and Mock then split the participants into two groups. Those in the first group were asked to read U.S. Department of Agriculture data from 2004 showing that it costs an average middle-income family in the Northeast $193,680 to raise a child to the age of 18.
The second group was asked to read the same data, but participants in that group also received information that adult children provide financial and other support to aging parents so that parents are often more financially secure in their later years than nonparents.
Both groups then read eight statements about parenting and rated their agreement with those statements on a five-point scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). The statements included falsehoods like “Nonparents are more likely to be depressed than parents” and “Parents experience a lot more happiness and satisfaction in their lives compared to people who have never had children.” (More on Time.com: Perspective on the Parenting Debate: Rich Parents Don't Matter?)
The results confirmed Eibach and Mock's hypothesis. Parents who read only the data showing how expensive kids are should have responded more negatively to parenting. But in fact they idealized parenting far more than those who were also given the information about the benefits of parenting later on.
Why? For the same reason you keep spending money to fix up an old car when it just doesn't work — or keep investing in the same company when it's failing. Humans throw good money after bad all the time. When we have invested a lot in a choice that turns out to be bad, we're really inept at admitting that it didn't make rational sense. Other research has shown that we romanticize our relationships with spouses and partners significantly more when we believe we have sacrificed for them. We like TVs that we've spent a lot to buy even though our satisfaction is no lower when we watch a cheaper television set.
To confirm their results, Eibach and Mock conducted a second experiment, this time with 60 parents. The second study was identical to the first but added a control group that got no information about parenting at all. The second experiment also added measures of participants' enjoyment of time spent with their kids and intentions to spend future time with them. And the subjects were asked to compare spending time with their children to spending time with their spouse or partner, spending time with their best friend, and spending time on a favorite hobby.
Once again, those who read only about how expensive kids are idealized parenthood far more than those who read about both the costs and the benefits of raising children (and far more than the control group did). They were also significantly more likely to believe that spending time with kids is more rewarding than other activities, even though researchers have found that when you measure how rewarding parents found any given day spent with their children, they rated that day worse than they had expected to. (More on Time.com: What's the Deal with 'Baby Yoga'?)
Does this mean you shouldn't have kids? Yes — but you won't. Our national fantasy about the joys of parenting permeates the culture. Never mind that it wasn't always like this. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we thought nothing of requiring kids to get jobs even before they hit puberty. Few thought of it as abuse. Reformers helped change the system — and rightly so — so that children could be educated. But this created a conundrum. As Eibach and Mock write, “As children's economic value plummeted, their perceived emotional value rose, creating a new cultural model of childhood that [one researcher] aptly dubbed ‘the economically worthless but emotionally priceless child.'” Or, as the writer Jennifer Senior put it in a New York magazine article last summer, “Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses.”
Of course parents should be commended for one little thing they do: maintain the existence of humanity. I praise them for that, but I think they're both heroes and suckers.
***
-
afternoon
-
Did anyone saw e PAP Times over the water agreement?
Actually I think Johor's water still e cheapest to get, but it's not safe to depend on it
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Kid Crazy: Why We Exaggerate the Joys of Parenthood
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/#ixzz1FgtClOaxAll parents know that having kids is a blessing — except when it's a nightmare of screaming fits, diapers, runny noses, wars over bedtimes and homework and clothes. To say nothing of bills too numerous to list. Some economists have argued that having kids is an economically silly investment; after all, it's cheaper to hire end-of-life care than to raise a child. Now comes new research showing that having kids is not only financially foolish but that kids literally make parents delusional.
Researchers have known for some time that parents with minors who live at home report feeling calm significantly less often than than people who don't live with young children.
Parents are also angrier and more depressed than nonparents — and each additional child makes them even angrier. Couples who choose not to have kids also have better, more satisfying marriages than couples who have kids. (More on Time.com: Charlie Sheen's Twins Are Taken Away from Him. What Happens Now?)
To be sure, all such evidence will never outweigh the desire to procreate, which is one of the most powerfully encoded urges built into our DNA. But a new paper shows that parents fool themselves into believing that having kids is more rewarding than it actually is. It turns out parents are in the grip of a giant illusion.
The paper, which appears in the journal Psychological Science, presents the results of two studies conducted by Richard Eibach and Steven Mock, psychologists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. The studies tested the hypothesis that “idealizing the emotional rewards of parenting helps parents to rationalize the financial costs of raising children.”
Their hypothesis comes out of cognitive-dissonance theory, which suggests that people are highly motivated to justify, deny or rationalize to reduce the cognitive discomfort of holding conflicting ideas. Cognitive dissonance explains why our feelings can sometimes be paradoxically worse when something good happens or paradoxically better when something bad happens. For example, in one experiment conducted by a team led by psychologist Joel Cooper of Princeton, participants were asked to write heartless essays opposing funding for the disabled. When these participants were later told they were really compassionate — which should have made them feel better — they actually felt even worse because they had written the essays. (More on Time.com: Why Parents Should Play Video Games With Their Daughters)
Here's how cognitive-dissonance theory works when applied to parenting: having kids is an economic and emotional drain. It should make those who have kids feel worse. Instead, parents glorify their lives. They believe that the financial and emotional benefits of having children are significantly higher than they really are.
To test their hypothesis, Eibach and Mock recruited 80 parents at public locations in the northeastern U.S. Forty-seven of the parents were women, and all had at least one child under 18. Eibach and Mock then split the participants into two groups. Those in the first group were asked to read U.S. Department of Agriculture data from 2004 showing that it costs an average middle-income family in the Northeast $193,680 to raise a child to the age of 18.
The second group was asked to read the same data, but participants in that group also received information that adult children provide financial and other support to aging parents so that parents are often more financially secure in their later years than nonparents.
Both groups then read eight statements about parenting and rated their agreement with those statements on a five-point scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). The statements included falsehoods like “Nonparents are more likely to be depressed than parents” and “Parents experience a lot more happiness and satisfaction in their lives compared to people who have never had children.” (More on Time.com: Perspective on the Parenting Debate: Rich Parents Don't Matter?)
The results confirmed Eibach and Mock's hypothesis. Parents who read only the data showing how expensive kids are should have responded more negatively to parenting. But in fact they idealized parenting far more than those who were also given the information about the benefits of parenting later on.
Why? For the same reason you keep spending money to fix up an old car when it just doesn't work — or keep investing in the same company when it's failing. Humans throw good money after bad all the time. When we have invested a lot in a choice that turns out to be bad, we're really inept at admitting that it didn't make rational sense. Other research has shown that we romanticize our relationships with spouses and partners significantly more when we believe we have sacrificed for them. We like TVs that we've spent a lot to buy even though our satisfaction is no lower when we watch a cheaper television set.
To confirm their results, Eibach and Mock conducted a second experiment, this time with 60 parents. The second study was identical to the first but added a control group that got no information about parenting at all. The second experiment also added measures of participants' enjoyment of time spent with their kids and intentions to spend future time with them. And the subjects were asked to compare spending time with their children to spending time with their spouse or partner, spending time with their best friend, and spending time on a favorite hobby.
Once again, those who read only about how expensive kids are idealized parenthood far more than those who read about both the costs and the benefits of raising children (and far more than the control group did). They were also significantly more likely to believe that spending time with kids is more rewarding than other activities, even though researchers have found that when you measure how rewarding parents found any given day spent with their children, they rated that day worse than they had expected to. (More on Time.com: What's the Deal with 'Baby Yoga'?)
Does this mean you shouldn't have kids? Yes — but you won't. Our national fantasy about the joys of parenting permeates the culture. Never mind that it wasn't always like this. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we thought nothing of requiring kids to get jobs even before they hit puberty. Few thought of it as abuse. Reformers helped change the system — and rightly so — so that children could be educated. But this created a conundrum. As Eibach and Mock write, “As children's economic value plummeted, their perceived emotional value rose, creating a new cultural model of childhood that [one researcher] aptly dubbed ‘the economically worthless but emotionally priceless child.'” Or, as the writer Jennifer Senior put it in a New York magazine article last summer, “Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses.”
Of course parents should be commended for one little thing they do: maintain the existence of humanity. I praise them for that, but I think they're both heroes and suckers.
***
the writer should go ask his parents if they considered themselves suckers for having him ......
